Award Recomm E.T MacKenzie KavcoLF_ConstructionContract 26094.pdf

X

X Funding Source

100% RMF

SAR

7/7/26

A contract be awarded to in the amount of $177,240.00 for the best value bid

To:

Ms. Bridget Walsh Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) Remediation and Redevelopment (RRD) Constitution Hall, 5th Floor South Lansing MI 48933

CC:

Lynn Gosson, EGLE RRD, Grand Rapids District Office

Recommendation Letter

Subject: Kavco Landfill – AST Decommissioning Contractor Recommendation

761/26094.SAR

RFQ-171-260000000311-2

Dear Ms. Walsh, AECOM

3950 Sparks Drive SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546 aecom.com

Project Name:

Kavco Landfill – Plainwell, Michigan AST Decommissioning

Project Ref.:

60782836

From:

Mike Cox, AECOM

Date:

June 30, 2026

Bids for the Kavco Landfill – AST Decommissioning project were received and opened by the Department of Technology, Management, and Budget (DTMB) on June 10, 2026. AECOM has reviewed the eight (8) responsive bid packages received from the DTMB:

Received Contractor Bid Package Total Base Bid ($ USD) TSP Construction, LLC $174,211.77

Job Site Services, Inc. $188,785.00

Catskill Remedial Contracting Services, Inc. $229,371.00

TJM Services, LLC $287,150.00

AECOM has reviewed the submittals and determined TSP Construction, LLC (TSP) and ET MacKenzie Company, LLC (ETM) to be qualified, responsive bidders. During contractor interviews conducted for TSP and ETM, differing amounts for duration of construction were noted. During the interviews, TSP estimated its duration of construction at 20 days and ETM estimated its duration of construction at 15 days. Based on ETM’s ability to perform the work in a shorter timeframe, five days less PSC oversight would be required to perform the work should ETM be selected.

Based on the reduced amount of PSC oversight required using ETM, the State’s overall cost to complete the work would be less using ETM.

A comparison of Performance Evaluations supplied by DTMB was also completed for both TSP and ETM for evaluations completed in 2024, 2025, and 2026. In summary, TSP’s performance evaluations included significant scope and health and safety deficiencies resulting in TSP not being recommended in two separate evaluations and having an average Performance Score of 86.38 between all provided evaluations. ETM’s supplied performance evaluations included comments noting excellent execution of work and having an average Performance Score of 109.00.

E.T. MacKenzie Company, LLC $177,240.00

Cripps Fontaine Excavating, Inc. $219,000.00

Environmental Remediation Group, LLC $282,000.00

Balkema Construction, Inc. $608,488.00

For further details of estimated costs showing ETM as the overall lowest cost to the State for this project and for Performance Evaluation Ratings and calculations, please refer to the attached document entitled TSP ETM Comparison Table.

AECOM recommends awarding the project to ET MacKenzie Company, LLC for the amount of $177,240.00. A summary of the bids is provided in the table above and the qualification submittals for ET MacKenzie Company, LLC are attached to this letter.

If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact me at mike.cox@aecom.com or 616-634- 6234.

Yours sincerely, Michael K. Cox Senior Project Manager P: 616-634-6234 E: mike.cox@aecom.com

Attachments:

DTMB Bid Tabulation and Recommendation For Contract Award DTMB Best Value Construction Bidder Evaluations for TSP & ETM Performance Evaluations Supplied by DTMB for TSP and ETM TSP ETM Comparison Table Bidder Supplemental Documentation for TSP and ETM mailto:mike.cox@aecom.com mailto:mike.cox@aecom.com

BEST VALUE

CONSTRUCTION BIDDER EVALUATION

April 2025

File No. 761/26094.SAR Project Name/Phase: Kavco Landfill AST Decommissioning Bidder: ET MacKenzie PSC: AECOM Date: 06/25/2026

EVALUATION CHECKLIST

PART ONE: Responsiveness and Responsibility Yes No Review bid forms and bid submittals prior to interview Are all bid forms and bid submittals in order, complete, and signed? X Have all addenda been acknowledged? X Is the bidder a Michigan firm? X Will 50% or more of the persons employed on the project have been residents of the State of Michigan for not less than one year before the beginning of this project?

X

Does the Contractor acknowledge that all subcontractors are required to obtain a State Project Registration (SPR) from the Department of Labor & Economic Opportunity, Wage & Hour Division?

X

Are DCD contractor performance evaluations (if any) acceptable? (Add comments pg. 5 if No) Are the completed projects of similar size and complexity, and references, acceptable? X Is the project superintendent’s resume and past experience with similar projects acceptable? X Does this contractor have a satisfactory (under 1.0) Experience Modification Rate (EMR)? X Is the contractor a member of the MIOSHA Michigan Voluntary Protection Program (MVPP) through the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (LEO - Michigan Voluntary Protection Program (MVPP))?

X

Is the company or are principal individuals on the Federal System for Award Management (http://www.SAM.gov) exclusion list? Barrett will provide Does this contractor have open MIOSHA violations within the last three (3) years prior to bid opening?

(http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.html)

X

Does this work include asbestos abatement? If so, does this contractor and/or any asbestos abatement subcontractors have more than four (4) notices of violation?

X

Interview Within the last five (5) years has your organization been issued a Notice Requiring Assurance of Due Performance, Notice of Intent to Default, or Default – Notice of Termination for Cause, on a State of Michigan project? (If yes, attach a detailed explanation.)

X

Within the last five (5) years has any officer or partner of your organization been an officer or partner of another organization that has been issued a Notice Requiring Assurance of Due Performance, Notice of Intent to Default, or Default – Notice of Termination for Cause, on a State of Michigan project? (If yes, attach a detailed explanation.)

X

Is your proposal mathematically, correct? X

Do you have any concerns with or need clarifications of the bid documents? (If yes, attach a detailed explanation.)

X

Does the bid contain deviations such as substitutions or voluntary alternates? X If there are deviations, have those deviations been reviewed?

Have you included all components for a complete project? X Are you comfortable with your bid and your ability to complete the project within the duration specified? X Do you understand the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control requirements (if any) for the project? X Do you understand the Special Working Conditions and Supplemental Conditions (if any) for the project? X Do you understand substantial and final completion and liquidated damages, if any? X Does your proposed project schedule reflect the project duration outlined in the bid documents? X Do you anticipate any difficulties obtaining your performance and payment bonds? X Are you using the bonding capacity of any other entity (i.e., subcontractor)? X Do you understand the Davis-Bacon Act / Prevailing Wage requirements per the bid documents? X PSC and PD discuss and decide post-interview Is this contractor responsive? X Is this contractor responsible? X Question to bidder Do you still wish your bid to remain in consideration? X

April 2025

Comments/Explanations of Negative Responses (may attach other sheets)

Signed:

Date

EVALUATION CHECKLIST

PART TWO: Qualitative Components

E x c el le n t

A c ce p ta b le

N o t

A c ce p ta

Interview How do you plan to provide communications and information for this project?

What is your management plan for this project?

Have you worked successfully with the DTMB Design and Construction Division?

Have you worked successfully with the Client Agency?

Have you worked successfully with the Professional Service Contractor?

How many projects have your successfully completed with your principal subcontractors (if any)?

_____ not worked with before ______ 1-5 _______ 5-10+

What percentage of the project work will be self-performed?

___ 5% or less; ___ 6 to 50%; ___ more than 50%

What other projects do you currently have under contract? (Attach separate sheet) Has any required specialized construction been adequately addressed?

What are your primary concerns regarding the successful completion of this project?

How do you intend to record the project as-built documents?

Is the project superintendent a permanent full-time employee of the contractor?

The following section only applies if these items were specifically requested for review in the bid documents.

Was a bid breakdown submitted? ___Y ___ N If yes, is that bid breakdown satisfactory?

Was a list of subcontractors submitted? ___Y ___ N If so, is that list acceptable?

The following section only applies if a project schedule was requested as part of the post-bidding submittals.

Has a proposed project schedule been submitted? ___Y ____ N Is the proposed project schedule acceptable?

Project-Specific Qualitative Questions What is your estimated duration of work to complete the scope? Answer – 15 days X

(Can also include additional questions specific to the project)

Cox, Mike Stamp

Cox, Mike Typewriter

(AECOM) 06/25/2026

File No. 761/26094.SAR Project Name/Phase: Kavco Landfill AST Decommissioning Bidder: TSP Construction, LLC PSC: AECOM Date: 06/22/2026

EVALUATION CHECKLIST

PART ONE: Responsiveness and Responsibility Yes No Review bid forms and bid submittals prior to interview Are all bid forms and bid submittals in order, complete, and signed? X Have all addenda been acknowledged? X Is the bidder a Michigan firm? X Will 50% or more of the persons employed on the project have been residents of the State of Michigan for not less than one year before the beginning of this project?

X

Does the Contractor acknowledge that all subcontractors are required to obtain a State Project Registration (SPR) from the Department of Labor & Economic Opportunity, Wage & Hour Division?

X

Are DCD contractor performance evaluations (if any) acceptable? (Add comments pg. 5 if No) X Are the completed projects of similar size and complexity, and references, acceptable? Contingent upon provision

X

Is the project superintendent’s resume and past experience with similar projects acceptable? Will Provide

X

Does this contractor have a satisfactory (under 1.0) Experience Modification Rate (EMR)? Will provide X Is the contractor a member of the MIOSHA Michigan Voluntary Protection Program (MVPP) through the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (LEO - Michigan Voluntary Protection Program (MVPP))?

X

Is the company or are principal individuals on the Federal System for Award Management (http://www.SAM.gov) exclusion list?

X

Does this contractor have open MIOSHA violations within the last three (3) years prior to bid opening?

(http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.html)

X

Does this work include asbestos abatement? If so, does this contractor and/or any asbestos abatement subcontractors have more than four (4) notices of violation?

X

Interview Within the last five (5) years has your organization been issued a Notice Requiring Assurance of Due Performance, Notice of Intent to Default, or Default – Notice of Termination for Cause, on a State of Michigan project? (If yes, attach a detailed explanation.)

X

Within the last five (5) years has any officer or partner of your organization been an officer or partner of another organization that has been issued a Notice Requiring Assurance of Due Performance, Notice of Intent to Default, or Default – Notice of Termination for Cause, on a State of Michigan project? (If yes, attach a detailed explanation.)

X

Is your proposal mathematically, correct? X

Do you have any concerns with or need clarifications of the bid documents? (If yes, attach a detailed explanation.)

X

Does the bid contain deviations such as substitutions or voluntary alternates? X If there are deviations, have those deviations been reviewed?

Have you included all components for a complete project? X Are you comfortable with your bid and your ability to complete the project within the duration specified? X Do you understand the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control requirements (if any) for the project? X Do you understand the Special Working Conditions and Supplemental Conditions (if any) for the project? X Do you understand substantial and final completion and liquidated damages, if any? X Does your proposed project schedule reflect the project duration outlined in the bid documents? X Do you anticipate any difficulties obtaining your performance and payment bonds? X Are you using the bonding capacity of any other entity (i.e., subcontractor)? X Do you understand the Davis-Bacon Act / Prevailing Wage requirements per the bid documents? X PSC and PD discuss and decide post-interview Is this contractor responsive? X Is this contractor responsible? X

Question to bidder Do you still wish your bid to remain in consideration? X

Comments/Explanations of Negative Responses (may attach other sheets)

Signed:

Date

EVALUATION CHECKLIST

PART TWO: Qualitative Components

E x c el le n t

A c ce p ta

N o t

A c ce p ta

Interview How do you plan to provide communications and information for this project?

What is your management plan for this project?

Have you worked successfully with the DTMB Design and Construction Division?

Have you worked successfully with the Client Agency?

Have you worked successfully with the Professional Service Contractor?

How many projects have your successfully completed with your principal subcontractors (if any)?

_____ not worked with before ______ 1-5 _______ 5-10+

What percentage of the project work will be self-performed?

___ 5% or less; ___ 6 to 50%; ___ more than 50%

What other projects do you currently have under contract? (Attach separate sheet) Has any required specialized construction been adequately addressed?

What are your primary concerns regarding the successful completion of this project?

How do you intend to record the project as-built documents?

Is the project superintendent a permanent full-time employee of the contractor?

The following section only applies if these items were specifically requested for review in the bid documents.

Was a bid breakdown submitted? ___Y ___ N If yes, is that bid breakdown satisfactory?

Was a list of subcontractors submitted? ___Y ___ N If so, is that list acceptable?

The following section only applies if a project schedule was requested as part of the post-bidding submittals.

Has a proposed project schedule been submitted? ___Y ____ N Is the proposed project schedule acceptable?

Project-Specific Qualitative Questions What is your estimated duration of work to complete the scope? Answer – 20 days X

(Can also include additional questions specific to the project)

Cox, Mike Stamp

Cox, Mike Typewriter

(AECOM) 06/22/2026

Project File No.: 761/19234.SAR Project Y Number: Y25366

Project Department/Agency: EGLE-RRD Project Name/Location: Snedicor's Cleaners, Howell, MI

Contractor Name: E.T. MacKenzie Company, LLC Date of Evaluation: 2/27/2026

Evaluator Name/Agency/Title: Chris Douglas, Weston Solutions of Michigan, Inc., Project Manager

Rating 1 thru 5 Not Applicable

N/A

Yes or No Yes

No No No No

Comments:

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

This form will form part of an objective evaluation of a Contractor's performance on a State of Michigan construction project. This information may affect the determination of responsiveness and responsibility for future bidding. Evaluations must be made only by personnel familiar with the project and the contractor (PD, OFR, PSC, Agency SPC). Notes, photos, and correspondence must be attached to support "poor" ratings.

Overall excellent execution of the project scope, within the agreed timeline, and under budget.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

118TOTAL PERFORMANCE AND EVENTS RATING

Did the Contractor make unwarranted change order requests?

Were any Notices of Defective Work filed?

Were any Default/Termination processes started?

Were there safety or MIOSHA concerns noted in the project records?

CONTRACT COMPLETION

Bonds and insurances were timely and complete

The site was clean, secure, & orderly; materials were properly stored Construction met interim and final progress schedule milestones Construction quality met the requirements of the contract Contractor prevented problems & worked positively to correct issues

RECOMMENDATION

Would you recommend this Contractor for a future similar project?

EVENTS OF CONCERN

The Contractor actively promoted safety and quality construction

Punch List was completed timely

The project was properly staffed with competent, qualified people at all stages

As-built Documents were regularly updated and submitted timely Punch List was reasonable for the project scope

Schedule, subcontractor list, and Schedule of Values were submitted on time and complete Construction Schedule was realistic, accurate, & sufficiently detailed Schedule of Values was realistic, accurate, and sufficiently detailed Submittals, Shop Drawings, & Bulletin Quotes were reviewed before submittal, were timely, accurate, & complete Contractor administered the project in accordance with the contract and accepted contracting practice

CONSTRUCTION

RATING SCALE

1 - Poor 2 - Below Average 3 - Average 4 - Above Average 5 - Excellent

If a rating is not known for an item please select "N/A"

Contractor understood and met the requirements of the project Contractor controlled and coordinated the subs and suppliers

PERFORMANCE RATING

The project administration staff was competent and qualified Construction schedule was pro-actively managed, regularly reviewed and updated

Project File No.: 761/23255.SAR

Project Y Number: Y24404

Project Department/Agency: EGLE/RRD

Project Name/Location: MSI 667/Lansing/Ingham Co.

Contractor Name: E.T. MacKenzie

Date of Evaluation: 2/20/2025

Evaluator Name/Agency/Title: Autumn Henney/EGLE/EQA

Rating

1 thru 5 Not Applicable

N/A

Yes or No Yes

No

No

No

No

Comments:

RATING SCALE

1 - Poor 2 - Below Average 3 - Average 4 - Above Average 5 - Excellent

If a rating is not known for an item please select "N/A"

Contractor understood and met the requirements of the project

Contractor controlled and coordinated the subs and suppliers

PERFORMANCE RATING

The project administration staff was competent and qualified

Construction schedule was pro-actively managed, regularly reviewed and updated

The project was properly staffed with competent, qualified people at all stages

As-built Documents were regularly updated and submitted timely

Punch List was reasonable for the project scope

Schedule, subcontractor list, and Schedule of Values were submitted on time and complete

Construction Schedule was realistic, accurate, & sufficiently detailed

Schedule of Values was realistic, accurate, and sufficiently detailed

Submittals, Shop Drawings, & Bulletin Quotes were reviewed before submittal, were timely, accurate, & complete

Contractor administered the project in accordance with the contract and accepted contracting practice

CONSTRUCTION

RECOMMENDATION

Would you recommend this Contractor for a future similar project?

EVENTS OF CONCERN

The Contractor actively promoted safety and quality construction

Punch List was completed timely

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

This form will form part of an objective evaluation of a Contractor's performance on a State of Michigan construction project. This information may affect the determination of responsiveness and responsibility for future bidding. Evaluations must be made only by personnel familiar with the project and the contractor (PD, OFR, PSC, Agency SPC). Notes, photos, and correspondence must be attached to support "poor" ratings.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

117TOTAL PERFORMANCE AND EVENTS RATING

Did the Contractor make unwarranted change order requests?

Were any Notices of Defective Work filed?

Were any Default/Termination processes started?

Were there safety or MIOSHA concerns noted in the project records?

CONTRACT COMPLETION

Bonds and insurances were timely and complete

The site was clean, secure, & orderly; materials were properly stored

Construction met interim and final progress schedule milestones

Construction quality met the requirements of the contract

Contractor prevented problems & worked positively to correct issues

Project File No.: 472/19019.TYC

Project Y Number: Y23065

Project Department/Agency: Dept. of Corrections

Project Name/Location: SAI Faility, Various Buildings Demolition Contractor Name: E.T. MacKenzie Company

Date of Evaluation: 1/24/2024 Evaluator Name/Agency/Title: Todd Cordill, RA, NCARB

Rating 1 thru 5 Not Applicable

Yes or No Yes

No No No Yes

Comments:

RATING SCALE

1 - Poor 2 - Below Average 3 - Average 4 - Above Average 5 - Excellent

If a rating is not known for an item please select "N/A"

Contractor understood and met the requirements of the project Contractor controlled and coordinated the subs and suppliers

PERFORMANCE RATING

The project administration staff was competent and qualified Construction schedule was pro-actively managed, regularly reviewed and updated

The project was properly staffed with competent, qualified people at all stages

As-built Documents were regularly updated and submitted timely Punch List was reasonable for the project scope

Schedule, subcontractor list, and Schedule of Values were submitted on time and complete Construction Schedule was realistic, accurate, & sufficiently detailed Schedule of Values was realistic, accurate, and sufficiently detailed Submittals, Shop Drawings, & Bulletin Quotes were reviewed before submittal, were timely, accurate, & complete Contractor administered the project in accordance with the contract and accepted contracting practice

CONSTRUCTION

RECOMMENDATION

Would you recommend this Contractor for a future similar project?

EVENTS OF CONCERN

The Contractor actively promoted safety and quality construction

Punch List was completed timely

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

This form will form part of an objective evaluation of a Contractor's performance on a State of Michigan construction project. This information may affect the determination of responsiveness and responsibility for future bidding. Evaluations must be made only by personnel familiar with the project and the contractor (PD, OFR, PSC, Agency SPC). Notes, photos, and correspondence must be attached to support "poor" ratings.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

92TOTAL PERFORMANCE AND EVENTS RATING

Did the Contractor make unwarranted change order requests?

Were any Notices of Defective Work filed?

Were any Default/Termination processes started?

Were there safety or MIOSHA concerns noted in the project records?

CONTRACT COMPLETION

Bonds and insurances were timely and complete

The site was clean, secure, & orderly; materials were properly stored Construction met interim and final progress schedule milestones

Project File No.: 761/24239.SAR

Project Y Number: Y24416

Project Department/Agency: EGLE RRD

Project Name/Location: 4515 Tireman / 10000599

Contractor Name: TSP Construction LLC

Date of Evaluation: 4/16/2024

Evaluator Name/Agency/Title: Rick McGregor/EGLE RRD/EQA

Rating

1 thru 5 Not Applicable

Yes or No Yes

No

No

No

No

Comments:

RATING SCALE

1 - Poor 2 - Below Average 3 - Average 4 - Above Average 5 - Excellent

If a rating is not known for an item please select "N/A"

Contractor understood and met the requirements of the project

Contractor controlled and coordinated the subs and suppliers

PERFORMANCE RATING

The project administration staff was competent and qualified

Construction schedule was pro-actively managed, regularly reviewed and updated

The project was properly staffed with competent, qualified people at all stages

As-built Documents were regularly updated and submitted timely

Punch List was reasonable for the project scope

Schedule, subcontractor list, and Schedule of Values were submitted on time and complete

Construction Schedule was realistic, accurate, & sufficiently detailed

Schedule of Values was realistic, accurate, and sufficiently detailed

Submittals, Shop Drawings, & Bulletin Quotes were reviewed before submittal, were timely, accurate, & complete

Contractor administered the project in accordance with the contract and accepted contracting practice

CONSTRUCTION

RECOMMENDATION

Would you recommend this Contractor for a future similar project?

EVENTS OF CONCERN

The Contractor actively promoted safety and quality construction

Punch List was completed timely

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

This form will form part of an objective evaluation of a Contractor's performance on a State of Michigan construction project. This information may affect the determination of responsiveness and responsibility for future bidding. Evaluations must be made only by personnel familiar with the project and the contractor (PD, OFR, PSC, Agency SPC). Notes, photos, and correspondence must be attached to support "poor" ratings.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

101TOTAL PERFORMANCE AND EVENTS RATING

Did the Contractor make unwarranted change order requests?

Were any Notices of Defective Work filed?

Were any Default/Termination processes started?

Were there safety or MIOSHA concerns noted in the project records?

CONTRACT COMPLETION

Bonds and insurances were timely and complete

The site was clean, secure, & orderly; materials were properly stored

Construction met interim and final progress schedule milestones

Project File No.: 761/06201.RRD

Project Y Number: Y07035

Project Department/Agency: EGLE-RRD

Project Name/Location: Waterford Hills Sanitary Landfill, Waterford MI Contractor Name: TSP Environmental

Date of Evaluation: 2/12/2025 Evaluator Name/Agency/Title: Colleen McLean/EGLE/Senior EQA

Rating 1 thru 5 Not Applicable

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

Yes or No No

No No No No

Comments:

RATING SCALE

1 - Poor 2 - Below Average 3 - Average 4 - Above Average 5 - Excellent

If a rating is not known for an item please select "N/A"

Contractor understood and met the requirements of the project Contractor controlled and coordinated the subs and suppliers

PERFORMANCE RATING

The project administration staff was competent and qualified Construction schedule was pro-actively managed, regularly reviewed and updated

The project was properly staffed with competent, qualified people at all stages

As-built Documents were regularly updated and submitted timely Punch List was reasonable for the project scope

Schedule, subcontractor list, and Schedule of Values were submitted on time and complete Construction Schedule was realistic, accurate, & sufficiently detailed Schedule of Values was realistic, accurate, and sufficiently detailed Submittals, Shop Drawings, & Bulletin Quotes were reviewed before submittal, were timely, accurate, & complete Contractor administered the project in accordance with the contract and accepted contracting practice

CONSTRUCTION

RECOMMENDATION

Would you recommend this Contractor for a future similar project?

EVENTS OF CONCERN

The Contractor actively promoted safety and quality construction

Punch List was completed timely

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

This form will form part of an objective evaluation of a Contractor's performance on a State of Michigan construction project. This information may affect the determination of responsiveness and responsibility for future bidding. Evaluations must be made only by personnel familiar with the project and the contractor (PD, OFR, PSC, Agency SPC). Notes, photos, and correspondence must be attached to support "poor" ratings.

TSP’s contract ended 9/30/24. February 11, 2025, TSP came onto the site without permission and removed the Nitrogen tank from the flare system. TSP did not notify the SPM or ERG they needed the tank back or that they were coming on site to get the nitrogen tank.

There are two locked gates to get onto the property and a locked fenced area around the flare that they bypassed without permission.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

68TOTAL PERFORMANCE AND EVENTS RATING

Did the Contractor make unwarranted change order requests?

Were any Notices of Defective Work filed?

Were any Default/Termination processes started?

Were there safety or MIOSHA concerns noted in the project records?

CONTRACT COMPLETION

Bonds and insurances were timely and complete

The site was clean, secure, & orderly; materials were properly stored Construction met interim and final progress schedule milestones

Project File No.: 761/24295.SAR

Project Y Number: Y25269

Project Department/Agency: EGLE

Project Name/Location: Detroit Oil Co

Contractor Name: TSP Construction

Date of Evaluation: 2/20/2026

Evaluator Name/Agency/Title: Dominic Aluia/EGLE RRD/ Senior Project Manager

Rating

1 thru 5 Not Applicable

Yes or No No

Yes

No

No

No

Comments:

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

This form will form part of an objective evaluation of a Contractor's performance on a State of Michigan construction project. This information may affect the determination of responsiveness and responsibility for future bidding. Evaluations must be made only by personnel familiar with the project and the contractor (PD, OFR, PSC, Agency SPC). Notes, photos, and correspondence must be attached to support "poor" ratings.

See Additional Comment Page.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

67TOTAL PERFORMANCE AND EVENTS RATING

Did the Contractor make unwarranted change order requests?

Were any Notices of Defective Work filed?

Were any Default/Termination processes started?

Were there safety or MIOSHA concerns noted in the project records?

CONTRACT COMPLETION

Bonds and insurances were timely and complete

The site was clean, secure, & orderly; materials were properly stored

Construction met interim and final progress schedule milestones

Construction quality met the requirements of the contract

Contractor prevented problems & worked positively to correct issues

RECOMMENDATION

Would you recommend this Contractor for a future similar project?

EVENTS OF CONCERN

The Contractor actively promoted safety and quality construction

Punch List was completed timely

The project was properly staffed with competent, qualified people at all stages

As-built Documents were regularly updated and submitted timely

Punch List was reasonable for the project scope

Schedule, subcontractor list, and Schedule of Values were submitted on time and complete

Construction Schedule was realistic, accurate, & sufficiently detailed

Schedule of Values was realistic, accurate, and sufficiently detailed

Submittals, Shop Drawings, & Bulletin Quotes were reviewed before submittal, were timely, accurate, & complete

Contractor administered the project in accordance with the contract and accepted contracting practice

CONSTRUCTION

RATING SCALE

1 - Poor 2 - Below Average 3 - Average 4 - Above Average 5 - Excellent

If a rating is not known for an item please select "N/A"

Contractor understood and met the requirements of the project

Contractor controlled and coordinated the subs and suppliers

PERFORMANCE RATING

Summary of Poor Ratings on DTMB-0495 Contractor Evaluation

TSP did not coordinate pre-remedial activity site survey as detailed within this Bid Specs.

The initial site survey was completed after building deconstruction and earth movement had begun.

EGLE PM & PSC, WSP, had to repeatedly request that TSP follow the bid specifications regarding site security including privacy fence, fence clips and sand bags to secure the fencing. Excavation work began on August 20th, 2025. EGLE PM was onsite and observed

UST excavation activities beginning, but the temporary site fence had not been installed to secure the Site. EGLE PM notified WSP PM and a temporary fence was installed later that day.

TSP did not notify EGLE PM of onsite health and safety incident when a construction worker fainted on the job site on Tuesday August 18th, 2025. EGLE PM instead was informed of this medical incident from EGLE’s professional services contractor, WSP, who noted in a phone call that the TSP employees suddenly left the job site. TSP did not follow their HASP and instead transported their employee directly to an alternative hospital. EGLE PM and

EGLE Health and Safety Coordinator Dana Brandt had to repeatedly request documentation of TSP's response to this incident. They did not provide EGLE with documentation of the incident until September 19th, 2025.

Project File No.: 761/17231.SAR

Project Y Number: Y22375

Project Department/Agency: EGLE-RRD

Project Name/Location: Gudith Road Landfill

Contractor Name: TSP

Date of Evaluation: 8/14/2024

Evaluator Name/Agency/Title: Ben Vens/EGLE-RRD/Detroit District Assistant District Supervisor

Rating

1 thru 5 Not Applicable

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Yes or No Yes

No

No

No

No

Comments:

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

This form will form part of an objective evaluation of a Contractor's performance on a State of Michigan construction project. This information may affect the determination of responsiveness and responsibility for future bidding. Evaluations must be made only by personnel familiar with the project and the contractor (PD, OFR, PSC, Agency SPC). Notes, photos, and correspondence must be attached to support "poor" ratings.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

82TOTAL PERFORMANCE AND EVENTS RATING

Did the Contractor make unwarranted change order requests?

Were any Notices of Defective Work filed?

Were any Default/Termination processes started?

Were there safety or MIOSHA concerns noted in the project records?

CONTRACT COMPLETION

Bonds and insurances were timely and complete

The site was clean, secure, & orderly; materials were properly stored

Construction met interim and final progress schedule milestones

Construction quality met the requirements of the contract

Contractor prevented problems & worked positively to correct issues

RECOMMENDATION

Would you recommend this Contractor for a future similar project?

EVENTS OF CONCERN

The Contractor actively promoted safety and quality construction

Punch List was completed timely

The project was properly staffed with competent, qualified people at all stages

As-built Documents were regularly updated and submitted timely

Punch List was reasonable for the project scope

Schedule, subcontractor list, and Schedule of Values were submitted on time and complete

Construction Schedule was realistic, accurate, & sufficiently detailed

Schedule of Values was realistic, accurate, and sufficiently detailed

Submittals, Shop Drawings, & Bulletin Quotes were reviewed before submittal, were timely, accurate, & complete

Contractor administered the project in accordance with the contract and accepted contracting practice

CONSTRUCTION

RATING SCALE

1 - Poor 2 - Below Average 3 - Average 4 - Above Average 5 - Excellent

If a rating is not known for an item please select "N/A"

Contractor understood and met the requirements of the project

Contractor controlled and coordinated the subs and suppliers

PERFORMANCE RATING

Project File No.: 761/17231.SAR

Project Y Number: Y22375

Project Department/Agency: EGLE-RRD

Project Name/Location: Gudith Road Landfill

Contractor Name: TSP

Date of Evaluation: 8/14/2024

Evaluator Name/Agency/Title: Anita Emery-DeVisser / WSP /

Rating

1 thru 5 Not Applicable

N/A

N/A

Yes or No Yes

N/A

No

No

No

Comments:

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

This form will form part of an objective evaluation of a Contractor's performance on a State of Michigan construction project. This information may affect the determination of responsiveness and responsibility for future bidding. Evaluations must be made only by personnel familiar with the project and the contractor (PD, OFR, PSC, Agency SPC). Notes, photos, and correspondence must be attached to support "poor" ratings.

I have completed this evaluation given the information contained in the project file. The WSP project manager that was in place when this scope of work was performed has left the company.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

80TOTAL PERFORMANCE AND EVENTS RATING

Did the Contractor make unwarranted change order requests?

Were any Notices of Defective Work filed?

Were any Default/Termination processes started?

Were there safety or MIOSHA concerns noted in the project records?

CONTRACT COMPLETION

Bonds and insurances were timely and complete

The site was clean, secure, & orderly; materials were properly stored

Construction met interim and final progress schedule milestones

Construction quality met the requirements of the contract

Contractor prevented problems & worked positively to correct issues

RECOMMENDATION

Would you recommend this Contractor for a future similar project?

EVENTS OF CONCERN

The Contractor actively promoted safety and quality construction

Punch List was completed timely

The project was properly staffed with competent, qualified people at all stages

As-built Documents were regularly updated and submitted timely

Punch List was reasonable for the project scope

Schedule, subcontractor list, and Schedule of Values were submitted on time and complete

Construction Schedule was realistic, accurate, & sufficiently detailed

Schedule of Values was realistic, accurate, and sufficiently detailed

Submittals, Shop Drawings, & Bulletin Quotes were reviewed before submittal, were timely, accurate, & complete

Contractor administered the project in accordance with the contract and accepted contracting practice

CONSTRUCTION

RATING SCALE

1 - Poor 2 - Below Average 3 - Average 4 - Above Average 5 - Excellent

If a rating is not known for an item please select "N/A"

Contractor understood and met the requirements of the project

Contractor controlled and coordinated the subs and suppliers

PERFORMANCE RATING

Project File No.: 751/24141.JLM

Project Y Number: Y25152

Project Department/Agency: Department of Natural Resources

Project Name/Location: Benton Harbor BAS - Paving and Repairs Contractor Name: TS Contract Management

Date of Evaluation: 7/11/2025 Evaluator Name/Agency/Title: Paul McGahan - DTMB Field Rep.

Rating 1 thru 5 Not Applicable

Yes or No Yes

No No No No

Comments:

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

This form will form part of an objective evaluation of a Contractor's performance on a State of Michigan construction project. This information may affect the determination of responsiveness and responsibility for future bidding. Evaluations must be made only by personnel familiar with the project and the contractor (PD, OFR, PSC, Agency SPC). Notes, photos, and correspondence must be attached to support "poor" ratings.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

101TOTAL PERFORMANCE AND EVENTS RATING

Did the Contractor make unwarranted change order requests?

Were any Notices of Defective Work filed?

Were any Default/Termination processes started?

Were there safety or MIOSHA concerns noted in the project records?

CONTRACT COMPLETION

Bonds and insurances were timely and complete

The site was clean, secure, & orderly; materials were properly stored Construction met interim and final progress schedule milestones Construction quality met the requirements of the contract Contractor prevented problems & worked positively to correct issues

RECOMMENDATION

Would you recommend this Contractor for a future similar project?

EVENTS OF CONCERN

The Contractor actively promoted safety and quality construction

Punch List was completed timely

The project was properly staffed with competent, qualified people at all stages

As-built Documents were regularly updated and submitted timely Punch List was reasonable for the project scope

Schedule, subcontractor list, and Schedule of Values were submitted on time and complete Construction Schedule was realistic, accurate, & sufficiently detailed Schedule of Values was realistic, accurate, and sufficiently detailed Submittals, Shop Drawings, & Bulletin Quotes were reviewed before submittal, were timely, accurate, & complete Contractor administered the project in accordance with the contract and accepted contracting practice

CONSTRUCTION

RATING SCALE

1 - Poor 2 - Below Average 3 - Average 4 - Above Average 5 - Excellent

If a rating is not known for an item please select "N/A"

Contractor understood and met the requirements of the project Contractor controlled and coordinated the subs and suppliers

PERFORMANCE RATING

Project File No.: 751/24141.JLM

Project Y Number: Y25152

Project Department/Agency: Department of Natural Resources

Project Name/Location: Benton Harbor BAS - Paving and Repairs Contractor Name: TS Contract Management

Date of Evaluation: 7/11/2025 Evaluator Name/Agency/Title: Josiah Meyers/DTMB-DCD/Project Director

Rating 1 thru 5 Not Applicable

Yes or No Yes

No No No No

Comments:

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

This form will form part of an objective evaluation of a Contractor's performance on a State of Michigan construction project. This information may affect the determination of responsiveness and responsibility for future bidding. Evaluations must be made only by personnel familiar with the project and the contractor (PD, OFR, PSC, Agency SPC). Notes, photos, and correspondence must be attached to support "poor" ratings.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

101TOTAL PERFORMANCE AND EVENTS RATING

Did the Contractor make unwarranted change order requests?

Were any Notices of Defective Work filed?

Were any Default/Termination processes started?

Were there safety or MIOSHA concerns noted in the project records?

CONTRACT COMPLETION

Bonds and insurances were timely and complete

The site was clean, secure, & orderly; materials were properly stored Construction met interim and final progress schedule milestones Construction quality met the requirements of the contract Contractor prevented problems & worked positively to correct issues

RECOMMENDATION

Would you recommend this Contractor for a future similar project?

EVENTS OF CONCERN

The Contractor actively promoted safety and quality construction

Punch List was completed timely

The project was properly staffed with competent, qualified people at all stages

As-built Documents were regularly updated and submitted timely Punch List was reasonable for the project scope

Schedule, subcontractor list, and Schedule of Values were submitted on time and complete Construction Schedule was realistic, accurate, & sufficiently detailed Schedule of Values was realistic, accurate, and sufficiently detailed Submittals, Shop Drawings, & Bulletin Quotes were reviewed before submittal, were timely, accurate, & complete Contractor administered the project in accordance with the contract and accepted contracting practice

CONSTRUCTION

RATING SCALE

1 - Poor 2 - Below Average 3 - Average 4 - Above Average 5 - Excellent

If a rating is not known for an item please select "N/A"

Contractor understood and met the requirements of the project Contractor controlled and coordinated the subs and suppliers

PERFORMANCE RATING

Project File No.: 751.23237.CTS

Project Y Number: Y24052

Project Department/Agency: DNR

Project Name/Location: Sleeper SP Sewer/Lift Station Improvements Contractor Name: TSP Environmental

Date of Evaluation: 10/13/2025 Evaluator Name/Agency/Title: Chris Schanbeck, DTMB-DCD, Project Director

Rating 1 thru 5 Not Applicable

Yes or No Yes

No No No No

Comments:

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

This form will form part of an objective evaluation of a Contractor's performance on a State of Michigan construction project. This information may affect the determination of responsiveness and responsibility for future bidding. Evaluations must be made only by personnel familiar with the project and the contractor (PD, OFR, PSC, Agency SPC). Notes, photos, and correspondence must be attached to support "poor" ratings.

Bulk of the lift station install went fine but stumbled to complete some late added controls the DNR asked for.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

83TOTAL PERFORMANCE AND EVENTS RATING

Did the Contractor make unwarranted change order requests?

Were any Notices of Defective Work filed?

Were any Default/Termination processes started?

Were there safety or MIOSHA concerns noted in the project records?

CONTRACT COMPLETION

Bonds and insurances were timely and complete

The site was clean, secure, & orderly; materials were properly stored Construction met interim and final progress schedule milestones Construction quality met the requirements of the contract Contractor prevented problems & worked positively to correct issues

RECOMMENDATION

Would you recommend this Contractor for a future similar project?

EVENTS OF CONCERN

The Contractor actively promoted safety and quality construction

Punch List was completed timely

The project was properly staffed with competent, qualified people at all stages

As-built Documents were regularly updated and submitted timely Punch List was reasonable for the project scope

Schedule, subcontractor list, and Schedule of Values were submitted on time and complete Construction Schedule was realistic, accurate, & sufficiently detailed Schedule of Values was realistic, accurate, and sufficiently detailed Submittals, Shop Drawings, & Bulletin Quotes were reviewed before submittal, were timely, accurate, & complete Contractor administered the project in accordance with the contract and accepted contracting practice

CONSTRUCTION

RATING SCALE

1 - Poor 2 - Below Average 3 - Average 4 - Above Average 5 - Excellent

If a rating is not known for an item please select "N/A"

Contractor understood and met the requirements of the project Contractor controlled and coordinated the subs and suppliers

PERFORMANCE RATING

Project File No.: 751.18085.MNB

Project Y Number: Y21262

Project Department/Agency: DNR

Project Name/Location: Milliken State Park- Berm Improvments Contractor Name: TSP Enviromental

Date of Evaluation: 5/5/2026 Evaluator Name/Agency/Title: Chris Bahjet, DTMB-DCD- Project Director

Rating 1 thru 5 Not Applicable

Yes or No Yes

No No No No

Comments:

RATING SCALE

1 - Poor 2 - Below Average 3 - Average 4 - Above Average 5 - Excellent

If a rating is not known for an item please select "N/A"

Contractor understood and met the requirements of the project Contractor controlled and coordinated the subs and suppliers

PERFORMANCE RATING

The project administration staff was competent and qualified Construction schedule was pro-actively managed, regularly reviewed and updated

The project was properly staffed with competent, qualified people at all stages

As-built Documents were regularly updated and submitted timely Punch List was reasonable for the project scope

Schedule, subcontractor list, and Schedule of Values were submitted on time and complete Construction Schedule was realistic, accurate, & sufficiently detailed Schedule of Values was realistic, accurate, and sufficiently detailed Submittals, Shop Drawings, & Bulletin Quotes were reviewed before submittal, were timely, accurate, & complete Contractor administered the project in accordance with the contract and accepted contracting practice

CONSTRUCTION

RECOMMENDATION

Would you recommend this Contractor for a future similar project?

EVENTS OF CONCERN

The Contractor actively promoted safety and quality construction

Punch List was completed timely

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

This form will form part of an objective evaluation of a Contractor's performance on a State of Michigan construction project. This information may affect the determination of responsiveness and responsibility for future bidding. Evaluations must be made only by personnel familiar with the project and the contractor (PD, OFR, PSC, Agency SPC). Notes, photos, and correspondence must be attached to support "poor" ratings.

Construction work went smotth, quotes were fair. The restoration after establishing the path, was an issue. Seeded many many times but it didn’t germinate. They asked for aw after source, there is none nearby but that's responsibility. The soil had mixed fine gravel with it. SmithGroup wrote the specification and advised this: STONES VISIBLE There are a couple reasons that you are seeing stones in the lawn area. First, the topsoil was allowed to be unscreened to save money, which means that stones may be mixed in with the topsoil. Here is the language from the specifications:

"1. Topsoil for landscape work shall be a fertile, friable, sandy loam surface soil without admixture of subsoil. Topsoil does not need to be screened through a mechanical plant but must be free of stones larger than 2 inches in any dimension, stumps, trash, debris, and other materials deleterious to plant growth." In recommending the final payment, I asked SG what are the expectations for spring 2026, they said Chris- I would expect the reseeded areas to germinate in the spring and grass to cover the site by the end of June. We shall see .

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

88TOTAL PERFORMANCE AND EVENTS RATING

Did the Contractor make unwarranted change order requests?

Were any Notices of Defective Work filed?

Were any Default/Termination processes started?

Were there safety or MIOSHA concerns noted in the project records?

CONTRACT COMPLETION

Bonds and insurances were timely and complete

The site was clean, secure, & orderly; materials were properly stored Construction met interim and final progress schedule milestones

TSP ETM Comparison Table

TSP Construction LLC ET MacKenzie Co. LLC Performance Evaluation Rating Information Year

2024 101/yes, 82/yes 92/yes 2025 68/no, 101/yes, 101/yes, 83/yes 117/yes 2026 67/no, 88/yes 118/yes

Average Performance Score 86.38 109.00

Performance Score Comments

2025 McLean 68 score noted that TSP entered a locked site without authorization after their contract end date and removed a tank. 2026 Aluia 67 score eval noted significant deficiencies in following project scope and also did not notify EGLE of a health and safety incident which occured at the site, requring off-site medical treatment.

2026 Weston 118 score noted excellent execution of scope, within timeline, and under budget

Contractor Estimated Duration of Work Indicated During Interview 20 days 15 days Associated PSC On-site Oversight Estimated Costs 18,116.00 13,789.50 Contractor Base Bid 174,211.78 177,240.00

Total of Contractor Bid and PSC Oversight 192,327.78 191,029.50

Rating / Would Recommend?

bwalquist Typewritten Text See Attached bwalquist Typewritten Text See Attached bwalquist Typewritten Text See Attached bwalquist Typewritten Text See Attached bwalquist

See Attached

Barrett Walquist Digitally signed by Barrett Walquist

DN: C=US,

E=bwalquist@mackenzieco.com, OU=E.T.

MacKenzie Company,…